Provincial Caribou Recovery Program Herd Planning Disclaimer

The following herd plans are a result of Phase One planning and are an incomplete product. Additionally, the documents are ‘living’ reports and will be updated regularly as Phase Two progresses.

Phase Two planning is currently underway for some herds however still at its early stages of development; many plans reflect this as they are in different stages along their scheduled project continuum.

One of the cornerstone guiding principles to the Caribou Recovery Program (the Program) is to use consistent, fact-based approaches for all woodland caribou herds in the province. The Program has refined and adopted a new format to herd planning that will effectively:

 Provide a consistent approach to managing all woodland caribou herds in BC  Recognize the unique circumstances of each herd  Build from current (legacy) caribou management plans  Consider First Nations’ and stakeholder interests and ideas  Be included in larger regional plans

Completed herd plans will describe the status of each herd, and the threats faced by that particular herd. The plans will take note of previous actions, and actions that are planned to take place in the future. As we implement the herd plans, the Program will carefully monitor to which extent and magnitude the caribou respond, and modify its actions as accordingly. Herd plans will help us document our decisions and discuss issues with First Nations and with stakeholders.

Phase One consisted of:

 Status of herd or sub-population  Identified threats  Literature  Previous work completed

Phase Two will consist of input from:

. Engagement with Indigenous communities . Provincial Caribou Science Team . Stakeholders . Decision-support tools

WOODLAND Horseranch CARIBOU Subpopulation PLAN Northern Mountain Caribou

Recommended Citation:

Photo credit: Doug Heard

Executive Summary: Introduction to the Program i Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary: Introduction to the Program ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... ii 1 Background ...... 3 1.1 Introduction to the Program ...... 3 2 Population Description ...... 3 2.1 Distribution ...... 3 2.2 Habitat and Behaviour ...... 5 2.3 Population Size and Trend ...... 6 3 Threats and Limiting Factors ...... 7 3.1 Predation ...... 8 3.2 Food Limitation ...... 8 3.3 Human Activities ...... 8 3.3.1 Industrial ...... 8 3.3.1.1 Forestry ...... 9 3.3.1.2 Mining ...... 9 3.3.1.3 Oil and Gas ...... 9 3.3.1.4 Clean Energy ...... 9 3.3.1.5 Other ...... 10 3.3.2 Recreation ...... 10 3.3.2.1 Snowmobile ...... 10 3.3.2.2 Heli-ski / Cat-ski ...... 10 3.3.2.3 Other ...... 11 3.3.3 Other ...... 11 3.3.3.1 Agriculture ...... 11 3.3.3.2 Major Highway Corridors ...... 11 3.3.3.3 Linear Features ...... 12 3.3.3.4 Hunting ...... 12 3.3.3.5 Poaching ...... 12 3.4 Natural Disturbance ...... 12 3.5 Parasites and Diseases ...... 13 3.6 Climate Change ...... 13 3.7 Small Population Size Effects ...... 14

Executive Summary: Introduction to the Program 1 Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

4 Management History ...... 15 4.1 Habitat ...... 15 4.1.1 Protection ...... 15 4.1.2 Enhancement and Restoration ...... 15 4.2 Recreation and Access Management ...... 16 4.2.1 Snowmobile ...... 16 4.2.2 Heli-ski / Cat-ski ...... 16 4.2.3 Other ...... 16 4.3 Predators ...... 16 4.3.1 Wolf Management ...... 17 4.3.2 Cougar Management ...... 17 4.3.3 Other ...... 17 4.4 Primary Prey ...... 18 4.4.1 Moose Management ...... 18 4.4.2 Deer Management...... 18 4.4.3 Other ...... 19 4.5 Population Reinforcement ...... 19 4.5.1 Maternity Penning ...... 19 4.5.2 Captive Breeding ...... 19 4.5.3 Translocation ...... 20 4.5.4 Other ...... 20 4.6 Stewardship/Outreach ...... 20 4.7 Research ...... 21 4.8 Monitoring ...... 21 5 Implications to Other Wildlife ...... 22 6 Implications to Other Values ...... 22 7 Partners / Neighbours ...... 22 8 Recommended Actions ...... 23 8.1 Short Term (Within 6–12 Months) ...... 23 8.2 Medium Term (Within 12–24 Months) ...... 23 8.3 Long Term (Within 24–48 Months) ...... 24 9 Literature Cited ...... 24

Executive Summary: Introduction to the Program 2

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROGRAM The Horseranch subpopulation is the northern mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), designatable unit seven (DU 7), and is within the Northern Mountain National Ecological Area (SMNEA). These herds are listed as Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2002). They are blue-listed in British Columbia and are included in the Provincial Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (British Columbia Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection 2004, Skeena Region 2017).

Range plans are required for all woodland caribou populations that are designated as threatened or endangered in Canada (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016). British Columbia is taking the extra step of preparing these plans for the Northern Mountain population of special concern. The Horseranch subpopulation is blue-listed in BC, and current monitoring indicates that they are increasing (British Columbia Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection 2004, Skeena Region 2017).

This document spans the divide between these disparate designations in British Columbia and Canada, compiling past research, knowledge and management actions into guidance for the management and recovery of the Horseranch Northern Mountain caribou subpopulation.

2 POPULATION DESCRIPTION Relative to other western mountain caribou (DU 8 and 9), members of this DU are found in dry sub-boreal montane ecosystems and use pine-dominated habitats during winter. Most populations of Northern Mountain caribou are relatively small and sedentary, with individuals wintering in small groups. They generally employ the calving strategy of moving to high elevations on open sub-alpine ridges, spacing away from conspecifics and predators (COSEWIC 2011).

2.1 DISTRIBUTION The Horseranch subpopulation range area is roughly 17,800 km2. It touches the Yukon Territory in the north, runs south roughly along the Dease River, then east just north of the Tanzilla and Turnagain Rivers. It then runs northeast to the Kechika River north to the Dease River near the Yukon border.

The most recent population estimate for the Horseranch subpopulation is 600 individuals, last censused in 1999. The population trend is currently unknown (British Columbia Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection 2004, Skeena Region 2017).

Information on ecology and habitat use specific to Horseranch caribou is limited. Available information indicates that seasonal movements of Horseranch caribou are dependent on snow conditions, though in general, they spend the summer in high elevation alpine and subalpine habitats and move to lower elevation coniferous forests during the winter (COSEWIC 2002). Winter forage consists primarily of terrestrial lichen (COSEWIC 2002).

Three biogeoclimatic (BEC) zones (Meidinger and Pojar 1991) occur in the range area. These BEC zones are generally described as:

Background: Introduction to the Program 3

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

• Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA) is dominated mostly by rock, ice and snow with vegetation limited to shrubs, herbs, mosses, lichens and dwarf trees. • Spruce Willow Birch (SWB) occurs at mid-elevations below the BAFA. The SWB supports open forests of predominantly white spruce, subalpine fir and deciduous shrubs.

Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBS) zone is found in the lower elevations. Frequent fires have resulted in extensive successional forests of lodgepole pine and trembling aspen. On gentle terrain, stands of white spruce and trembling aspen are interspersed with black spruce bogs (Brumovsky and McNay 2015).

Population Description: Distribution 4

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Figure 1: The location of the Horseranch subpopulation of woodland caribou. The 17,720 km2 range (inset: red outline) is within both the Skeena and Peace (7b) Wildlife Regions.

2.2 HABITAT AND BEHAVIOUR The Horseranch caribou subpopulation occupies habitats typical of northern mountain caribou in neighbouring herds. However, the Horseranch caribou range has relatively little alpine habitat, forcing them into

Population Description: Habitat and Behaviour 5

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation small differences in their rutting and calving behaviour (Fenger et al. 1986). To calve, Horseranch caribou seek out very rugged, fescue and heather sites not used at other times of year (Fenger et al. 1986). Post-calving, their summer, upland, moraine and sparsely forested range overlaps with their fall rutting distribution (Fenger et al. 1986). In the winter, they occupy forested lowlands where snow is typically shallow and access to terrestrial lichen is eased (Fenger et al. 1986).

2.3 POPULATION SIZE AND TREND The Horseranch caribou subpopulation was censused in October 1977 from a fixed-wing aircraft and then annually from 1978 to 1983 during October from a helicopter (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). A 2015 classification survey was flown for the Horseranch caribou subpopulation, but no report has been prepared. The available population trend suggests that the population has been increasing (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Caribou counts that included the complete range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation area (filled dots; Bergerud and Elliot 1986, COSEWIC 2014) and a partial survey (filled triangle; COSEWIC 2014). Caribou recruitment, measured as percent of calves in the population observed during a spring census (Bergerud and Elliot 1986), in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation has been at or above threshold four out of seven years (Figure 3) but has not been determined since 1983.

Population Description: Population Size and Trend 6

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Figure 3: Caribou population recruitment measured in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). Recruitment is defined here as the percent of the estimated population that is in the calf cohort. Recruitment lower than approximately 10 to 12% is considered below a threshold that will balance natural mortality (grey band; Bergerud and Elliot 1986).

3 THREATS AND LIMITING FACTORS Primary threats to caribou and their habitat have been noted by McNay et al. (2008), COSEWIC (2014) and a variety of independent studies (e.g. James et al. 2004, Wittmer et al. 2005b, Courtois et al. 2007, Seip et al. 2007, Wittmer et al. 2007). In this review, threats are treated in isolation, but this does not discount the likelihood that they interact. Cumulative effects assessment (Sorensen et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2015) is beyond the scope of this plan, but elements such as predation, human activities, and climate change are known to affect one another. Work on boreal caribou has demonstrated the value in developing comprehensive range planning for woodland caribou that considers interacting threats (Angelstam et al. 2004, Environment Canada 2012b).

Here, the following threats are considered:

1. Predation 2. Food limitation 3. Human activities a. Industrial b. Recreational c. Other 4. Natural disturbance 5. Parasites and diseases 6. Climate change 7. Hunting and poaching 8. Small population size effects

Threats and Limiting Factors: Population Size and Trend 7

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

3.1 PREDATION GPS collar and radio telemetry studies indicate that the dominant, proximal cause of woodland caribou mortality is predation (Wittmer et al. 2013). Woodland caribou have evolved with their predators and have persisted despite millennia of predation (Bergerud 1988). While the predator species killing caribou vary regionally (wolf, black bear, grizzly bear, cougar), their impact on woodland caribou populations has increased as the result of three dominant processes: apparent competition mediated by alternative prey abundance (Hebblewhite et al. 2007), apparent competition mediated by expanding alternative prey distribution (Wittmer et al. 2007, DeCesare et al. 2010b, Latham et al. 2011a, Latham et al. 2011c), and enhanced predator access to woodland caribou habitat (Hayhurst 1983, Latham et al. 2011b). More generally, Bergerud (2007) has calculated that wolf densities greater than 6.5 wolves/1000 km2 will result in woodland caribou declines. More recently, the federal recovery strategy identifies 3 wolves/1000 km2 as a target (Environment Canada 2014).

During the 1980s Bergerud and Elliot (1986) conducted experimental wolf removal in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range to test the effect of predation on calf survival. They found that calf survival increased significantly in the 3 years that wolves were reduced (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). It has also been found that while most calf mortality has occurred by the fall after birth, there is both a significant level of overwinter mortality and the timing and extent of calf mortality varies among years and among herds (BC Government unpublished data, Bergerud and Elliot 1986, Bergerud and Page 1987, COSEWIC 2014).

3.2 FOOD LIMITATION Woodland caribou are herbivores and rare among large mammals as lichen eaters (Johnson et al. 2004). While lichen makes up the bulk of their winter diet (Johnson et al. 2000, Parker et al. 2005), it is a smaller proportion of their summer diet (Denryter et al. 2017). And although habitat selection is predominantly thought to be influenced by predator avoidance, selected habitats must also be able to satisfy an individual’s nutritional needs (O'Brien et al. 2006, Brown et al. 2007). Trade-offs between these two fundamental demands (avoiding predators, finding food) raises the potential for woodland caribou to be food or energy limited as they seek predator refugia (Poole et al. 2000, Gustine et al. 2006). When it has been considered, estimates of caribou food abundance typically far exceeds population needs (Courtois et al. 2007).

The large range that is relatively devoid of disturbances and with diversity of habitats that typically carry high lichen abundance suggests that food should not be limiting for the Horseranch caribou population range. The best way to detect food stressed caribou is to measure pregnancy rates (Cameron et al. 1993). Nutritionally stressed female caribou either do not conceive or abort their fetus at early stages and thus nutritionally stressed herds show low pregnancy and birth rates (Gaillard et al. 2000). There are no indications of this from the limited surveys of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation.

3.3 HUMAN ACTIVITIES Human activities have consequences for woodland caribou conservation throughout British Columbia. This section focusses on the consequences of human industrial, recreational and other (agriculture, highway, linear feature clearing) activities (Wolfe et al. 2000).

3.3.1 INDUSTRIAL Industrial activities include forestry, mining, oil, gas and clean energy development. Caribou are affected by industrial activities both due to the presence of physical infrastructure as well as the resulting impacts on their habitat. A key concept to measure and understand industrial effects on caribou is the Zone of Influence (ZOI;

Threats and Limiting Factors: Predation 8

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Polfus et al. 2011). This is the area beyond the actual footprint of an industrial development or activity that affects caribou (Dyer et al. 2001). Zones of influence vary by activity and by the presence and absence of people.

3.3.1.1 FORESTRY Woodland caribou are an old-growth forest dependent species (Bergerud 2000). Hence, forest management affects their distribution and population dynamics. Although mountain caribou populations live seasonally in treeless, alpine ecosystems, all spend some of the year in forests. For this reason, forestry and natural disturbances will affect woodland caribou populations through habitat destruction and fragmentation (Smith et al. 2000). Forestry effects include very general habitat loss that reduces the amount of old-growth forest, to reduction in forest-based food resources to creating more, early seral forest habitat for apparent competitors (see below) such as deer and moose (Simpson and Woods 1987, Cichowski 1989, Seip 1990, Stevenson 1991, Cumming 1992). Factors, such as the type of forest regrowth (Cichowski 1989) and the size of cutblocks (Edmonds and Bloomfield 1984), play a role in the effect of forestry practices on woodland caribou populations. The ZOI of clearcuts for woodland caribou in Newfoundland was found to be 15 km beyond the actual cut block (Chubbs et al. 1993). Hence, even an array of small forest cutblocks can have a significant influence on caribou habitat availability.

The Horseranch caribou subpopulation falls within the Cassiar and Fort Nelson Timber Supply Areas. Although these TSAs are very active, there is little forestry in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. There are only 113 hectares of cutblock in the area with the most recent cut having been made in 1992.

3.3.1.2 MINING Mine sites deter caribou both for the activities that occur there when they are active as well a for the habitat they destroy. Mines have a 2 km ZOI when they are active, but this shrinks to the physical footprint of the mine site when mines are dormant, inactive or abandoned (Polfus et al. 2011).

There are active mines, gravel pits, open pit mines and abandoned mines and pits in the area of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. But their overall area is small; 3.8 km2 in total, largely concentrated along Highway 37 (Stewart Cassiar / Dease Lake Highway). There is a concentration of open pit mines not associated to the highway, but only about 3 km2 in total area.

3.3.1.3 OIL AND GAS Oil and gas development threatens caribou populations through habitat destruction, human activity, access, habitat fragmentation and elevated predation (Dyer et al. 2001, Boutin et al. 2012, Hervieux et al. 2013). Given the spatial scope of oil and gas developments (well sites, access roads, pipelines, seismic lines) and the range of activities that take place in caribou habitat cumulative effects of this combined with other activities (e.g. forestry, hydroelectric) also play a large role in threatening resident caribou herds (Nitschke 2008). A study of the consequences to caribou of being disturbed by oil and gas exploration found that individuals in active plays can lose more than 15% of body mass over winter attributed to noise displacement (Bradshaw et al. 1998).

There are no oil and gas plays or developments in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation area.

3.3.1.4 CLEAN ENERGY Clean energy refers to hydroelectric dams and wind farms. Hydroelectric reservoirs in caribou range can destroy or fragment habitat and cut movement corridors. Research in southern British Columbia correlated hydroelectric development with declines in caribou populations (Simpson 1987b). Hydroelectric dams, during

Threats and Limiting Factors: Human Activities 9

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation their construction and operation, have a ZOI that exceeds their footprint (Nellemann et al. 2003). Wind farm development can destroy caribou habitat, reduce forage availability, displace caribou and increase early-seral habitat that promotes growth of alternative prey populations (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2014).

There are no major clean energy projects or hydroelectric dams in, or proposed for, the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. There are, however, two dams immediately south of their range; the Hluey Lakes and the Tsenaglode Creek Dam, that are unlikely to affect the Horseranch caribou subpopulation.

3.3.1.5 OTHER There are no other major developments proposed in the area of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation.

3.3.2 RECREATION Recreational use of caribou habitat refers largely to fall and winter activities, including snowmobiling, commercial heli-skiing, commercial cat-skiing and hunting. In some jurisdictions, winter tour skiing and mountaineering are also relevant recreational activities as is summer use with off highway vehicles (OHVs). Numerous studies have shown that wildlife generally and woodland caribou in particular avoid mechanized winter activities to varying degrees (Simpson 1987a, Simpson and Terry 2000, Mahoney et al. 2001, Wilson and Hamilton 2003, Borkowski et al. 2006, Seip et al. 2007, Kinley 2008, Harris et al. 2014). Despite records of displacement, no study has been able to draw a direct link between winter recreational use and woodland caribou population decline, largely because effects are chronic and often delayed in time.

3.3.2.1 SNOWMOBILE Snowmobile use in caribou habitat can result in their displacement (Simpson 1987a, Webster 1997, Apps et al. 2001, Brade 2003, Kinley 2008). Studies in British Columbia and elsewhere have shown that caribou are far less likely to occupy winter habitats that are being used for recreational snowmobiling than equivalent habitats without snowmobile use (Mahoney et al. 2001, Seip et al. 2007). Mechanisms of displacement include caribou avoiding or fleeing snowmobiles while they are in use, or avoidance of snowmobile packed trails that facilitate access to caribou winter habitat by human hunters and natural predators (Bergerud 1988, James and Stuart-Smith 2000, Oberg 2001, Powell 2004, Polfus 2010, Whittington et al. 2011). A study of stress using hormone profiles in free-ranging caribou demonstrated that elevated fecal glucocorticoids in animals as far as 10 km from snowmobile activity, suggesting that caribou perceive snowmobiles in their habitat as a stressor (Freeman 2008).

Snowmobiling is a popular activity in Dease Lake, a town that is within the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. However, there is not a strong, tourism-based recreational industry in this area.

3.3.2.2 HELI-SKI / CAT-SKI Helicopter skiing and cat skiing are backcountry recreational activities that enable off-piste skiers to access high mountain terrain using either a helicopter or a tracked snow-cat that shuttles them to the top of ski runs. This is a commercial activity with numerous operators in British Columbia represented under one umbrella organization, HeliCat Canada (HCC). In southern British Columbia, HCC partners with the British Columbia government and non-government organizations to monitor caribou and helicat ski operations and minimize operational impacts. Concentrations of glucocorticoid stress hormones are higher in caribou that live where commercial heli-skiing operates than in areas without heli-skiing (Freeman 2008).

There are no heliski or catski tenures in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range, but Last Frontier Heliskiing and Skeena Heliski operate in the vicinity.

Threats and Limiting Factors: Human Activities 10

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

3.3.2.3 OTHER Backcountry tour skiing and mountaineering are recreational activities that occur in caribou habitat and can have an impact on woodland caribou conservation. Backcountry skiing (a term embracing of backcountry ski touring, unsupported, off-piste skiing and snowmobile assisted off-piste skiing) and mountaineering bring their participants into alpine areas that overlap with mountain caribou populations at sensitive times of the year (rut, winter). Unexpected encounters between individuals and people who are not in a vehicle can be very stressful for caribou and they can show a very strong flight response (McKay 2007).

There are backcountry ski routes through the Cassiar Mountains in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range, but they are not often used.

3.3.3 OTHER Other human activities occur in caribou habitat and have the potential to harm caribou and / or affect caribou populations. Agriculture, transportation corridors, electrical transmission rights-of-way, oil and gas exploration and pipelines and hunting all have known effects on caribou populations (James and Stuart-Smith 2000, Wolfe et al. 2000).

3.3.3.1 AGRICULTURE The effects of agriculture on caribou conservation are largely the result of conversion of low-elevation habitat to crops and pasture (habitat destruction) and the food subsidy they provide for alternative prey (deer, elk, moose). Habitat conversion is functionally similar to clearcut logging in that it removes overstory vegetation and can alter landscape properties like vegetation composition and local snow depth. Growing hay and grain crops within or adjacent to caribou range has the potential to directly increase the regional population size of deer, elk and moose that eat crops (Bowden 1985, Côté et al. 2004, Butler et al. 2008, Hatter et al. 2017) and indirectly their predators like bears and wolves. These, in turn, predate caribou, putting downward pressure on caribou populations (apparent competition).

Spread of disease and parasites from and to cattle is also a threat to woodland caribou from agricultural operations (Neiland et al. 1968, Trainer 1973, Wobeser 1976, Sifton 2001), and is discussed in section 3.5 (Parasites and Disease).

There is some ranching in the region, but agriculture is not a significant industry in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range.

3.3.3.2 MAJOR HIGHWAY CORRIDORS Where they occur in caribou habitat, highways have strong, negative effects on caribou populations (Johnson and Todd 1977, Curatolo and Murphy 1986, Apps and McLellan 2006). Vehicle activity on highways poses a movement barrier for caribou as they are either reluctant to approach a roadway or get killed trying to cross (Dyer et al. 2002, Rytwinski and Fahrig 2012). Habitat and population fragmentation results as populations are unable to move between ranges. Highways and roadways can also give people access to caribou range that increases the potential for disturbance. Linear disturbances, such as roadways have a large ZOI (Wolfe et al. 2000, Oberg 2001, Polfus et al. 2011, Whittington et al. 2011).

Highway 37, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, traverses the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range for approximately 160 kilometres in the southwest. The Alaska Highway travels just outside of the northeastern corner of their range. From 1988 to 2007, 19 caribou were killed on highways in BC Highway District 10

Threats and Limiting Factors: Human Activities 11

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

(Bulkley-Stikine). This is a vast area, and certainly not all of these animals were killed along Highway 37. Nevertheless, 560 animals were killed on this highway during this period, by far the most of any highway in the region. Moose are the most common animal struck on this districts’ highways. This suggests that highway mortality is a potential threat to the Horseranch caribou subpopulation.

3.3.3.3 LINEAR FEATURES Linear features are narrow land disturbances that tend to traverse entire ranges. They include seismic cut lines, pipelines, forestry roads and overhead power transmission rights-of-way. Linear features are not necessarily cleared to a roadway standard, but enable both four-wheel-drive access and ease travel for predators and alternative prey (Oberg 2001, Hebblewhite et al. 2010a). One hypothesized effect is that linear features facilitate predator movement into and within prey habitat thereby increasing predator-prey overlap (DeMars and Boutin 2017).

Except for the Stewart-Cassiar Highway and a parallel utility corridor, there are no linear features in the range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation. The COSEWIC (2014) status report lists the current threat from utility and service lines to be negligible, but indicates that the Horseranch caribou subpopulation is likely to be affected by pipeline developments in the future.

3.3.3.4 HUNTING The Horseranch caribou subpopulation straddles four Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) and two wildlife regions (Skeena (6) to the west and Peace (7b) to the east). Caribou hunting is permitted in the Skeena region and in the WMUs (19, 23 and 24) and in the Peace region (WMU 7-52) for five-point bulls only. From 1976 to 2015, 2133 caribou were reported killed by resident and non-resident hunters in the Skeena WMUs and 600 caribou reported killed in the Peace WMU. In total, 2733 caribou were killed (average of 70 per year). If all of these animals are taken from the Horseranch caribou subpopulation (the Little Rancheria, Level Kawdy, Tseneglode and Spatsizi all share these WMUs), this would be around 9% of a population of 800 estimated caribou in the subpopulation. However, this is unlikely to be the case.

3.3.3.5 POACHING Caribou poaching is an unregulated, indiscriminate and largely unknown source of mortality across their range. Animals are taken in any season, of any age or sex and in any number. This kind of additive mortality can have a profound impact on caribou populations in British Columbia (Johnson 1985) and interacts with habitat management and human access (Stevenson 1990) resulting in population declines.

There are no records of charges issued for hunting caribou out of season in the Skeena region from 2006 through 2018. Within the Peace region, there have been charges for “killing wildlife not within open season”, but the species was not specified. In 2012 a hunter was charged with failing to leave evidence of sex and species of a hunted caribou. Although poaching likely does occur in this area, it is unlikely to be a limiting threat (Seip and Jones 2017).

3.4 NATURAL DISTURBANCE Fire as a natural disturbance can have large-scale and long-lasting impacts on woodland caribou (Environment Canada 2014). Fire kills individuals, destroys habitat and changes predator-prey dynamics by improving habitat for alternative prey and increasing wolf-caribou spatial overlap (Robinson et al. 2012). Fire suppression, on the other hand, has increased the possibility of very large and intense fires that could alter entire

Threats and Limiting Factors: Natural Disturbance 12

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation range areas (Environment Canada 2012a). Mountain pine beetle infestations are also natural disturbances with large-scale and long-term effects (Cichowski and Williston 2005).

There have been almost 7000 km2 of wildfires in or crossing into the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range from 1944 to 2016, or approximately 40% of the area (this area is artificially high as some areas have burned more than once and wildfire areas for fires crossing the boundary include area burned outside the Horseranch range). Wildfires are concentrated in the northeastern, lowland forest part of the range and around the town of Dease Lake in the southwest. About half of this area burned before 1968, or 50 years from the time of writing and within the age that would be recovering as effective caribou habitat (Robinson et al. 2012).

3.5 PARASITES AND DISEASES Caribou are generally susceptible to a range of native and introduced diseases and parasites found in other ungulate species. Brucellosis is a contagious disease of ruminants which can cause spontaneous abortions particularly among first time breeding females (Neiland et al. 1968). The bacteria causing brucellosis in caribou is primarily Brucella suis that also affects swine (Jones 2014). Caribou are highly susceptible to the meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenius) that is fatal in some, but not all, deer species (Anderson 1972, Trainer 1973). Early reports of woodland caribou declines in eastern Canada attributed it to their overlap with white-tailed deer who are meant to be the primary host of P. tenuis (Cringan 1956). Besnoitiosis is a disease caused by infection with the protozoan parasite Besnoitia besnoiti and is known in wildlife and livestock around the world (Walden et al. 2014). It can cause spontaneous abortions in pregnant females and infertility in males, but it is primarily expressed as facial hair loss in infected animals. It has been found in free-ranging woodland caribou in northern Saskatchewan in 1976 (Wobeser 1976), captive caribou (Glover et al. 1990).

Caribou are also susceptible to tape worms (Echinococcus granulosus, E. multilocularis, Taenia ovis krabbei), bot flies (Oestrinae), warble flies (Hypodermatinae), liver flukes (Fascioloides magna), lumpy jaw (Actinomyces bovis), muscle worms (Parelaphostrongylus andersoni, P. odocoilei), and winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) (Miller et al. 2014b).

There is no reported occurrence of brucellosis or tuberculosis in British Columbia in any species. Severe symptoms of Besnoitiosis have not been found in caribou in British Columbia (Miller et al. 2014a). However, many of the other parasites can be found in woodland caribou in British Columbia with affects on individuals, but no reported population-effects on the Horseranch subpopulation. Chronic wasting disease, which has the potential for strong negative effects on this subpopulation, has not been detected in British Columbia in any species (Schwantje 2015).

3.6 CLIMATE CHANGE For species such as woodland caribou that undergo seasonal migrations, have predators with seasonal cycles, respond to plant and insect phenology and are sensitive to snow depth and season length, climate change will have direct effects (Vors and Boyce 2009). With alpine tundra habitats predicted to shrink in a warming climate, the effects of climate change on caribou may be profound (Harding and McCullum 1997, Swift and Ran 2012). Natural resource industries, such as forestry and oil and gas are both vulnerable and have a role to play in climate change mitigation (Houghton et al. 2001). How they adapt may also have consequences for caribou (Racey 2005). Climate change adds much complexity to managing caribou for long-term recovery, including how it affects the distribution of alternative prey (Seip 2008, Dawe and Boutin 2016) and available food (Parker et al. 2009).

Threats and Limiting Factors: Parasites and Diseases 13

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Climate change models for British Columbia suggest that areas in the Cariboo Mountains will experience increased winter snow loads (Dawson et al. 2008, Griesbauer and Green 2010) that could affect food access and mobility for animals. Such a change could be positive for snow adapted, arboreal lichen eating caribou. This benefit could be negated by more frequent freeze-thaw cycles (Plummer et al. 2006) that will improve the ability to predators to move across frozen crusts as well as limit access to food for caribou (Gillett et al. 2004, Dawson et al. 2008). Predictions of forest type shifts due to climate change mediated by fires suggest that black spruce may be replaced by white spruce and lodgepole pine, affecting caribou habitat (Hebda 1997).

Climate change models for British Columbia suggest that areas in the Interior Mountains will experience increased winter snow loads (Dawson et al. 2008, Griesbauer and Green 2010) that could affect food access and mobility for animals. Such a change could be detrimental for snow adapted, terrestrial lichen eating caribou like the Horseranch caribou subpopulation. Frequent freeze-thaw cycles could also negatively affect caribou (Plummer et al. 2006) by improving the ability of predators to move across frozen crusts as well as limit access to terrestrial food for caribou (Gillett et al. 2004, Dawson et al. 2008). Predictions of forest type shifts due to climate change mediated by fires suggest that black spruce may be replaced by white spruce and lodgepole pine, affecting caribou habitat (Hebda 1997).

While there is no herd-specific information on climate change effects on the Horseranch caribou subpopulation, there is research into general climate change effects on the southern Yukon area (Ogden and Innes 2008). Predictions on forest type shifts due to climate change suggest that black spruce may be replaced by white spruce and lodgepole pine, affecting caribou habitat (Hebda 1997).

3.7 SMALL POPULATION SIZE EFFECTS Small population effects include several threats to caribou that are unique to small (approximately less that 50 animals) and isolated subpopulations. These include reproductive and genetic isolation (McDevitt et al. 2009), predation (Sinclair et al. 1998, Abrams 2002), Allee effects where small groups are more vulnerable to predators (McLellan et al. 2010), risk of demographic bottlenecks where single-sex or male-dominated cohorts lead to population decline and increased chance that localized natural events such as avalanches (McClung 2001), fires or floods that kill a disproportionate number or key members of a small herd (Hebblewhite et al. 2010b). Movement barriers that prevent inter-population dispersal exacerbate small population effects by preventing small or extirpated populations of rescue (Gilpin 1990). Small population effects can be a particular hazard for species with slow growth rates (Laikre et al. 1997).

There was limited winter range overlap found between the Horseranch and Little Rancheria caribou subpopulations in the late 1990’s (N. MacLean and R. Marshall, BCELP, unpublished data cited in Adamczewski et al. 2003). However, since then surveys have found that caribou from the Little Rancheria, Horseranch, Swan Lake and Level-Kawdy subpopulations share overlapping winter ranges (M. Williams, pers. comm. 2013 cited in COSEWIC 2014). This overlap may foster genetic connectedness among these geographically close subpopulations.

The genetic viability of caribou subpopulations is dependant upon their size and dispersal (inter-population migration) ability (Weckworth et al. 2012). Small populations are subject to genetic drift that is a simple function of their small and unique gene pool as well as reduced gene flow (Boulet et al. 2007). Populations that are small and declining are particularly susceptible to genetic isolation (Laikre et al. 1997, Serrouya et al. 2012, Weckworth et al. 2012).

Threats and Limiting Factors: Small Population Size Effects 14

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Although there is uncertainty in the current size of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation (Figure 2), it seems likely that they have remained above a threshold density that could trigger a genetic bottleneck. This observation, plus their current connectedness to neighbouring subpopulations, suggests that small population effects are unlikely to be threatening the Horseranch caribou subpopulation.

4 MANAGEMENT HISTORY

4.1 HABITAT Habitat management in British Columbia is overseen by the provincial government and implemented by the forestry industry through application of their AAC (see above). Active restoration takes place in the form of cutblock replanting that accelerates seedling establishment (Cichowski 1989, Cichowski 1996). For their part, forestry regulations prescribe practices to manage resource use and protect forests that are caribou habitat (Seip 1998). However, given the almost complete absence of forestry in this area, this scale of habitat management is not being undertaken.

4.1.1 PROTECTION Provincial park legislation does not automatically protect caribou habitat from forestry, mining and petroleum resource activities. When land is acquired for a provincial park, with it comes the mineral and coal leases as well as timber and related licences (with compensation) (1996a). Hunting is also not automatically prohibited (Government of British Columbia 1996b). Petroleum and natural gas tenures are permitted by the British Columbia Park Act (Section 33 1996a) but are not relevant in this subpopulation range.

Boya Lake Provincial Park and Chicken’s Neck Mountain Ecological Reserve both fall within the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. These cover slightly more than 50 km2 in the area or about 0.3% of the total range. Hunting is permitted in Boya Lake, but not snowmobiling (Government of British Columbia 2003a). All recreational and commercial activities are prohibited in Chicken’s Neck Mountain Ecological Reserve (Government of British Columbia 2003b).

There is a large amount of high-elevation ungulate winter range (u-6-041) also overlapping the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. This area has been set aside with constraints on forest harvest to protect thinhorn sheep, but also protects caribou calving, summer and rutting ranges.

4.1.2 ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION Large-scale habitat restoration and enhancement for caribou protection and recovery generally refers to oil and gas activities (well sites, seismic lines) rather than forestry. Habitat restoration is very expensive and rarely undertaken at a scale that is beneficial to caribou (Schneider et al. 2010, Dickie et al. 2017). Small-scale habitat restoration actions, like decommissioning roads, replanting seismic lines or installing movement and visual barriers along pipelines can be effective (MacNearney et al. 2016, Pigeon et al. 2016, DeMars and Boutin 2017). Nevertheless, it is considered an essential step for caribou recovery in the absence of protection required for natural habitat regrowth that can take tens of decades.

The primary opportunities for restoration in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation area are in the gravel pits and small open mines along Highway 37. However, it is unlikely that this small area will have little impact on the caribou in this region.

Management History: Habitat 15

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

4.2 RECREATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT Road access to woodland caribou habitat elevates conservation threats including conflicts with motor vehicles, hunting pressure, habitat fragmentation and in some cases predation (James et al. 2004, Apps and McLellan 2006, Seip et al. 2007, Apps and Dodd 2017). A key element of caribou life history is to seek separation from competitors (moose, deer, elk) and their predators (Bergerud and Elliot 1986, Wittmer et al. 2007). Constructed access roads into woodland caribou habitat connects them to their threats and contributes to population declines (Dussault et al. 2012).

There are approximately 240 km of resource and unregulated access roads in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. At 0.013 km/km2, this is a very low density and is a minor threat to the caribou (Bennett 2017).

4.2.1 SNOWMOBILE There are no snowmobile management areas or managed snowmobile trails in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation area.

4.2.2 HELI-SKI / CAT-SKI There are no heli- or cat-ski tenures in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range. See section 3.3.2.2 for general threat information.

4.2.3 OTHER There are no specific management actions to regulate or limit other recreational activities such as backcountry skiing or summer OHV use. Within the Yukon range of northern caribou subpopulations, use of off- road vehicles, trail designations and seasonal restrictions on trail use have been recommended (Francis and Nishi 2015).

4.3 PREDATORS Unsustainable predation is acknowledged as a key, proximal mechanism of woodland caribou decline across Canada (Bergerud and Elliot 1986, Bergerud 1988, Environment Canada 2012b, 2014). Woodland caribou metapopulations have persisted despite ongoing predation from wolves, bears (black and grizzly) and cougars for millennia, but the existential impact of predators on caribou is a recent phenomenon. Human changes to habitats, fragmentation, movement barriers, dynamics of alternative prey and predator access to caribou habitat have led to conditions where caribou subpopulations are permanently extirpated.

Shrinking old-growth forest caribou habitat has forced caribou into increasingly smaller ranges, making their home range potentially more predictable to predators. Seasonal migratory routes track through predator rich areas and bring them into closer proximity to alternative prey species that can sustain higher predator populations (Seip 1992, Apps et al. 2013). Road and seismic line clearing and winter trail packing makes travel for predators into caribou critical habitats more efficient, elevating predation (Dickie et al. 2016). And, finally, a shift in forest structure towards younger age classes has favoured moose, deer and elk at densities that can support greater predator densities. Not only does this shift bring woodland caribou into closer proximity to predators, but it also promotes greater predator abundance (Hebblewhite et al. 2007).

Management History: Recreation and Access Management 16

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

While habitat changes facilitate unsustainable predation, habitat regrowth and restoration occurs too slowly to recover woodland caribou in the short-term. As a result, direct predator management is a caribou recovery tool to ensure that populations persist long enough to benefit from habitat restoration efforts (Wilson 2009, Brook et al. 2014, Hervieux et al. 2014).

4.3.1 WOLF MANAGEMENT Wolves are an important, year-round caribou predator. Caribou populations in northern British Columbia were shown to decline when wolf densities were 9–10/1000 km2 but increased at wolf densities from 1–4/1000 km2 (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). For this reason, target wolf densities that would enable caribou recovery are set to 6.5/1000 km2. In the absence of effective habitat or alternative prey management to achieve these densities, direct wolf management must be undertaken to achieve caribou conservation goals.

There is a history of wolf management in the area of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation. Wolves were actively reduced from 1977–1980 and again in 1985 (COSEWIC 2014). Removal of 60–90% of wolves over three winters increased recruitment of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation from 5.5% to 16.7% (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). During this period, wolves were reduced near the Horseranch caribou subpopulation from 10 to 1–4 /1000 km2 resulting in a caribou increase from 1977 to 1982 at an average exponential rate of 6% per year (Bergerud and Elliot 1986).

Wolves were counted on the winter range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation from 1978 to 1982 and the counts verified by the removal programs from 1978 to 1980 (Bergerud and Elliot 1986). There is no good current estimate of wolf density in this region, nor is there any ongoing wolf management outside of hunting and trapping.

4.3.2 COUGAR MANAGEMENT Cougars are very rare in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range, but they may be present (Spalding 1994). In British Columbia, particularly in the south (Wittmer et al. 2005a), cougars are a significant caribou predator. Cougar densities respond positively to deer density, and as deer densities climb, so will cougar densities. However, in northern British Columbia, there are only rare reports of cougar predation on caribou.

4.3.3 OTHER Grizzly bears, black bears and wolverines are also woodland caribou predators (Seip 1992, Wittmer et al. 2005a). However, their protection status, seasonality and / or low predation rate and dependence on caribou as food does not warrant management to benefit caribou populations. In rare cases associated with intensive caribou management programs (captive breeding, maternity penning) bear or wolverine removal may be conducted.

Bears are only managed in the Horseranch caribou subpopulation in response to human conflict and through hunting. Although black bears and grizzly bears both predate caribou in northern British Columbia, caribou are not a big part of bear diets (Merkle et al. 2017). Given the ban on 2017 grizzly bear hunting throughout BC and the low importance of bear predation on caribou population size, there is no active bear management in this region. Between 1976 and 2015, 500 black and grizzly bears were hunted by resident and non-resident hunters in the Skeena WMUs overlapping the Horseranch caribou range (13/year) and 646 black and grizzly bears were killed in WMU 7-52 in the Peace region (16/year).

Management History: Predators 17

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

In 2012, the British Columbia government estimated that there were 840 grizzly bears in the Muskwa region that overlaps with the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range (20–30/1000 km2) (Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012). The predation rate of grizzly bears on caribou in this region is unknown.

4.4 PRIMARY PREY Moose, elk, white-tailed deer and mule deer (including black-tailed deer) share large, mammalian predators such as wolves, bears and cougars. In what is known as apparent competition (Holt 1977), an increase in one prey population will lead to a decrease in a second prey population. It appears as if these two, prey species are competing with each other, but the decline of the second prey species is due to the benefit that their shared predator population experiences because of the high density of the first prey species. Woodland caribou have avoided apparent competition by occupying habitats distant from other deer species. However, changes to their habitats, movement barriers and facilitated predator access have limited their access to continued isolation. Across their range, woodland caribou populations have been subject to apparent competition (DeCesare et al. 2010b, Wittmer et al. 2013). For this reason, managing primary prey, either directly through hunting quotas, or indirectly through habitat management, has become a caribou management tool.

4.4.1 MOOSE MANAGEMENT Throughout British Columbia, moose are a common and sustaining prey of wolves (Messier 1994). But their expanding range (Bergerud and Elliot 1986), a wolf numerical response to moose densities (Messier and Joly 2000) and apparent competition with woodland caribou mean that even moderate moose densities in or adjacent to caribou range poses a threat to caribou persistence (Seip and Cichowski 1996, Lessard et al. 2005, Serrouya et al. 2017). Moose densities respond positively to early seral forest habitat and negatively to human hunting, and moose numbers have been falling around the province in response to harvest pressure (Moose Management Technical Team 2015). Lessard et al. (2005) found that a 10% increase in the moose harvest could stabilize caribou populations.

A region-wide survey reports that the moose population in the Skeena region is lower than it was in 1987, but has been essentially stable since 1997 (Kuzyk 2016). In the Peace region (7b), the moose population has increased slightly since 1987 (Kuzyk 2016). There are no recent and targeted moose population estimates for the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range, but there are plans for surveys in the game management zones that overlap with that range (7pd and 6e; Moose Management Technical Team 2015).

4.4.2 DEER MANAGEMENT Managing deer populations in support of caribou conservation is a challenge. Both mule and white-tailed deer can support predator populations that have negative effects on caribou (Latham et al. 2011c). Both can transmit diseases that could be catastrophic were they to spread to caribou populations (see above; Habib et al. 2011). Where mule deer and white-tail deer ranges overlap, mule deer tend to decline, perhaps also due to apparent competition (Robinson et al. 2002). In British Columbia, there is active management to increase mule deer populations through habitat protection (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2017) and manage white- tailed deer populations through hunting regulations (British Columbia Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015). Neither are strictly regulated by either predators or food. White-tailed deer populations respond strongly to food availability as well as hunting or predation (Fryxell et al. 1991, Messier 1991, Dumont et al. 2000). Mule deer are similar, but tend to be more vulnerable to predation, food availability, severe weather and loss of native winter habitat (Pierce et al. 2012, Forrester and Wittmer 2013, Bergman et al. 2015). Indeed, regulating deer density using hunter tags must counter some difficult trends (declining number of

Management History: Primary Prey 18

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation hunters, increase prey refugia from hunters and increased use of residential areas by deer) to be successful (Brown et al. 2000). Managing deer populations to a lower density will require managing artificial food sources (hay, grain), and access to high quality habitats as well as increased hunting pressure.

Deer occur at very low density (white tailed deer are absent and black tailed deer are rare) in the range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation, and there is no current need for their management.

4.4.3 OTHER Elk, like moose and deer, are wolf prey and could potentially facilitate apparent competition with caribou (DeCesare et al. 2010b). Elk are rare the Horseranch caribou subpopulation range, but in the 1970’s and 80’s there were enough elk to hold a hunt in the Skeena WMUs, and from 1976 to 2013 in the Peace WMU (7-52). They are nevertheless uncommon enough to not pose a significant management issue for caribou protection and recovery.

4.5 POPULATION REINFORCEMENT The International Union of Conserving Nations (IUCN) has established guidelines for reintroductions and related conservation translocations (IUCN Species Survival Commission 2012), of which population reinforcement is one tool. In this document, reinforcement is defined as an intentional movement and release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics within its indigenous range. It differs from reintroduction in that the species has not been extirpated from that range (DeCesare et al. 2010a), but existing populations are being added to. The management tools described in this section are based on the assumption that caribou populations are being reinforced and not reintroduced.

4.5.1 MATERNITY PENNING Maternity penning (sometimes called maternal penning) is a technique to increase calf recruitment by capturing and temporarily penning pregnant females to protect them from predators. These females are held through parturition and for up to six weeks after calves are born. By this time calves are large and strong enough to better avoid predators, improving their survival probability and population recruitment. Thus, if young-of-the- year predation is a contributing factor to unsustainable population decline, maternity penning can be an effective mitigation (Hayek et al. 2016). Maternity penning is an in situ method where the pen is constructed within their home range and animals are never moved outside of their home range.

There is no maternity penning operating or planned for the Horseranch region.

4.5.2 CAPTIVE BREEDING Captive breeding is a conservation method that captures both male and female animals and moves them permanently to a facility where they are bred under controlled conditions (IUCN Species Survival Commission 2012). The objective is to create a surplus of female calves in the breeding facility that can then be translocated to ranges to reinforce small populations. To be effective, recipient populations should have low adult female survival that this action can reverse. This is a ex situ approach that takes animals away from their home range and returns animals to ranges that may not be where they originate (Harding and McCullum 1997). A number of factors, such as source animals, animal husbandry, genetic bottlenecks, gene mixing with destination herds, status of destination herds, disease transmission, fate of male calves among others must be considered in such an effort (Dolman et al. 2015, Hayek et al. 2016).

Management History: Population Reinforcement 19

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Captive breeding to reinforce the Horseranch caribou subpopulation is not being planned, nor is it likely needed. Given that this subpopulation is relatively large and apparently stable (Figure 2), it may be considered as a source population for captive breeding programs.

4.5.3 TRANSLOCATION Translocation is the reinforcement of small populations by moving animals directly from a sustainable population (Ray et al. 2015, Hayek et al. 2016). The goal is to rapidly increase the numbers of animals of all ages and sexes in the target population (Miller et al. 2007, Decesare et al. 2010c). Animals are captured in their home range, transported to the target range and either soft released in a temporary pen that offers an opportunity for individuals to adjust to their new surroundings, or hard released directly into the destination habitat.

Compared with other reinforcement methods, translocation is a relatively cost-effective approach to add animals to small populations. It has been tried successfully and unsuccessfully with caribou populations in Canada and British Columbia (Compton et al. 1995, Stronen et al. 2007, Hayek et al. 2016).

The Horseranch caribou subpopulation meets the basic requirements as a source herd to reinforce other subpopulations, although the removal of more than approximately 20 from Horseranch may not be sustainable (Kinley 2009).

4.5.4 OTHER The proximate cause of caribou population declines is predation. While predator management is a direct way to manage this threat, an alternative solution is predator exclusion fencing (Hayek et al. 2016). In part, this approach is linked to direct predator management as any predators within an exclusion fence would be lethally removed, and it is linked to maternity penning as this is a form of small-scale, temporary predatory exclusion fencing. However, there are recent, and very large scale (thousands of hectares), proposals to erect predator exclusion fencing as a mitigation for caribou populations where habitat restoration is an unrealistic goal but the caribou population is critically low (Boutin and Merrill 2016, Cornwall 2016, Hebblewhite 2017, Proulx and Brook 2017).

To date, this conservation method has not been attempted anywhere, including in the range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation (Antoniuk et al. 2016).

4.6 STEWARDSHIP/OUTREACH Local communities and stewards are an essential part of caribou recovery. Management actions to recover very small populations are at times expensive, controversial and require the imposition of new and restrictive regulations (Hayek et al. 2016). Gaining the social licence to conduct management actions like predator management, translocation, captive breeding and access restrictions requires outreach. Effective outreach programs to local communities and regional populations must accompany planning for management actions (Antoniuk et al. 2015). This includes information to municipal and regional administrations, business stakeholders, recreational groups, conservation organizations, farming organizations, hunting clubs among others (see below). Outreach must be timely, targeted and inclusive to be effective (Wilkinson 2010).

Stewardship is the active participation by citizens or citizen groups in conservation and recovery programs. For caribou this can take a number of forms ranging from ambassador programs where citizen volunteers promote

Management History: Stewardship/Outreach 20

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation caribou conservation at community events, habitat protection through conservation offsets (Robichaud and Knopff 2015) to fund-raising and operating reinforcement activities such as maternity pens.

The Horseranch caribou range overlaps during part of the year with other herds in British Columbia and possibly the Yukon. The Stewart-Cassiar highway passes through its range. These create expanded opportunities for outreach that would be otherwise limited for remote caribou subpopulations such as the Horseranch. That this herd interacts with Yukon caribou provides opportunities to connect with stakeholders in Whitehorse, the largest urban area in the region.

There are significant opportunities for stewardship for the Horseranch caribou subpopulation. There is a thousands year long relationship between the people that inhabit this region that includes subsistence hunting for caribou (King and Carlick 1997). Thousands of tourist vehicles pass through this region along the Alaska and Stewart-Cassiar Highways creating opportunities for broad outreach as well as local stewardship for personal interpretation (e.g. caribou ambassadors http://ecologynorth.ca/caribou-ambassador-2/). As one of the few woodland caribou herds that is relatively large and stable (COSEWIC 2014), this subpopulation is a candidate to provide source animals for reinforcement activities (see above). Dease Lake is within this subpopulation’s range. Effective outreach and stewardship is a necessary step in this process so that local people understand the process and their contribution to broader conservation.

4.7 RESEARCH Every caribou subpopulation in British Columbia requires some degree of management action; habitat protection or restoration, population reinforcement, alternative prey management or predator control. Yet few caribou subpopulations in British Columbia have sufficient, herd-specific information to enable confident management decisions. To fill these gaps, scientific research and traditional ecological knowledge must be gathered to fill critical gaps.

There have been decades of studies on caribou biology and conservation. This body of work has informed scientists and policy makers of the key factors that contribute to caribou population dynamics, important threats and potential solutions. Key findings have been the proximate role of predation and apparent competition in caribou population fluctuations and the ultimate role of habitat destruction in caribou population declines. While their interactions are broadly understood, ongoing research to fine tune caribou responses to ecological stimuli and human disturbance including habitat fragmentation and primary prey density can improve our management.

There has been little research conducted on the Horseranch caribou subpopulation since Bergerud and Elliot (1986). Links among predators, alternative prey (moose) and caribou to determine dominant sources of caribou mortality, predator densities and alternative prey distributions would refine management actions for protection and reinforcement.

4.8 MONITORING Ecological, population and industrial footprint monitoring is an essential activity for the conservation and recovery of woodland caribou. This work provides the information to enable the detection of conservation threats, the effectiveness of management activities and the status of target populations. Although it cannot replace conservation action, it is an essential piece of the caribou recovery program.

There has been relatively little ecological and population monitoring in this area, with only periodic surveys since the 1980’s. The Horseranch caribou subpopulation was surveyed in 2015, but the results have yet to be analyzed.

Management History: Research 21

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Additional monitoring of predator and alternative prey populations to determine density and distribution is needed. Much of this could be achieved using non-invasive techniques such as scat DNA mark-recapture (Ball et al. 2010).

5 IMPLICATIONS TO OTHER WILDLIFE Changing population trends of woodland caribou will require manipulating the environment in ways that favour caribou ecology and life history at the expense of other wildlife. More old growth forest will benefit caribou but not moose or deer. Reducing adult female and calf mortality may require lethal wolf control. Maternity penning makes calves, common spring prey for black and grizzly bears, less vulnerable to these predators. None of these management actions can or will imperil other wildlife species but will precipitate changes to their population density and/or distribution.

Actions taken to protect and manage the Horseranch caribou and their habitat may benefit or inhibit the protection of other species and their habitats (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2013). The potential need for predator management will directly affect wolves, whose populations would be intentionally reduced, and other ungulate species like moose, whose densities may also have to be lowered to facilitate caribou conservation. Ungulate winter range protections in the Horseranch caribou range have been designed to protect high elevation thinhorn sheep populations. If UWR was extended to protect caribou, they would reciprocally protect sheep and goats.

6 IMPLICATIONS TO OTHER VALUES The recovery and protection of woodland caribou populations will affect a range of human values and activities across caribou range (Scarfe 2006). These include recreational / commercial activities such as camping, snowmobiling and backcountry skiing, commercial resource extraction activities such as forestry, mining and oil and gas development as well as non-commercial resource uses such as hunting. Research shows that none of these activities will have to be halted to protect woodland caribou (Kruse et al. 1998, Hebblewhite et al. 2006, Hebblewhite 2017). However, changes to operations, seasonal restrictions and area closures will be required, locally affecting some recreational and commercial activities (Government of Alberta 2016).

In the range of the Horseranch caribou subpopulation, there are limited commercial activities. Currently commercial logging operations in the area are compelled to avoid UWR that has been established over much of the high elevation terrain to protect thinhorn sheep. However, there are no commercial logging operations in the area. Expansion of UWR to new areas, if proposed, would further impede future operators.

Recreational snowmobiling also occurs in this area, at times combined with moose hunting. Again, careful management of recreational snowmobiling that considers elements of caribou recovery will be required to enable coexistence (Grant 2017).

7 PARTNERS / NEIGHBOURS Partners are existing or potential groups that can contribute to woodland caribou management with expertise, funding, in-kind or moral support. Neighbours are groups within in the caribou subpopulation area that are

Implications to Other Wildlife: Monitoring 22

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation currently not participating in caribou management but that could be affected by caribou management. They include local governments, industry tenure holders, and recreation groups. Neighbours could potentially become future partners.

Below is a list of communities in and adjacent to Horseranch subpopulation range, organizations that have a clear interest in how this area is managed and businesses that have a commercial interest in the area. This may not be a complete list, particularly of distant organization with an inherent interest.

Communities: First Nations: Kaska Dena Council (Dease River First Nation), Tahltan Central Government, Liard First Nation, Iskut First Nation, Daylu Dene Nation

Local: Dease Lake, Dease River, Lower Post, Good Hope Lake

Regional: Watson Lake, Iskut, Eddontenajon

Organizations: Recreation: Atlin Helicopters, Tundra Helicopters, Osprey Air, Discovery Helicopters, British Columbia Snowmobile Federation, Klondike Heliskiing, Klondike Snowmobile Association, Land Conservancy of British Columbia, Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia, Quad Riders Association of British Columbia, Last Frontier Heliskiing, Alpine Lakes Air, BC Yukon Air, Tundra Helicopters, Pacific Western Helicopters, Northern Thunderbird Air

Protection: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

Commercial: Hunting and Trapping: Accommodation and Guiding: Tahltan Outfitters, Little Dease Ventures. Bluestone Guiding and Adventures, BC Safaris, Moosehorn Lodge, Worldwide Trophy Adventures

Forestry (Active licences to cut): BC Hydro and Power Authority, District Manager, Skeena Stikine (DSS), Renald Bergeron, Ernest Hatzl, Jedway Enterprises Ltd.

Forestry (Woodlots): none

Agriculture: none

8 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

8.1 SHORT TERM (WITHIN 6–12 MONTHS) • Publish the results of the 2015 caribou population survey.

8.2 MEDIUM TERM (WITHIN 12–24 MONTHS) • Design and implement a long-term monitoring program for caribou, wolves and moose based on DNA scat mark-recapture analysis. • Using harvest data, assess the effects of harvest rates on population trends (Environment Canada 2012a). • Identify the timing and location if important road crossing areas for caribou and possible road crossing deterrents or alternatives to the application of road salt (Environment Canada 2012a).

Recommended Actions: Short Term (Within 6–12 Months) 23

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

8.3 LONG TERM (WITHIN 24–48 MONTHS) • Quantify seasonal habitat relationships for caribou, moose and their predators.

9 LITERATURE CITED Abrams, P. A. 2002. Will small population sizes warn us of impending extinctions? The American Naturalist 160:293–305. Adamczewski, J. Z., R. F. Florkiewicz, and V. Loewan. 2003. Habitat management in the Yukon winter range of the Little Rancheria caribou herd. Department of Environment, Government of the Yukon, Whitehorse, YT. Anderson, R. C. 1972. The ecological relationships of meningeal worm and native cervids in North America. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 8:304–310. Angelstam, P., S. Boutin, F. Schmiegelow, M.-A. Villard, P. Drapeau, G. Host, J. Innes, G. Isachenko, T. Kuuluvainen, M. Mönkkönen, J. Niemelä, G. Niemi, J.-M. Roberge, J. Spence, and D. Stone. 2004. Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation: A rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecological Bulletins 51:487–509. Antoniuk, T., E. Dzus, and J. Nishi. 2015. A methodological framework for caribou action planning in support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. The Science Committee and the National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, Ottawa, ON. Antoniuk, T., J. Nishi, R. Harding, L. McNeil, and K. Manuel. 2016. Northeast Alberta caribou predator fencing pilot: Overview. Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA). Calgary, AB. Apps, C., and N. L. Dodd. 2017. Caribou habitat modeling and evaluation of forest disturbance influences across landscape scales in west-central British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Williams Lake, BC. Apps, C. D., and B. N. McLellan. 2006. Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation 130:84–97. Apps, C. D., B. N. Mclellan, T. A. Kinley, and J. P. Flaa. 2001. Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:65–77. Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, T. A. Kinley, R. Serrouya, D. R. Seip, and H. U. Wittmer. 2013. Spatial factors related to mortality and population decline of endangered mountain caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:1409–1419. Ball, M., L. Finnegan, M. Manseau, and P. Wilson. 2010. Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatially delineate and characterize genetic population structure: an application to boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada. Conservation Genetics 11:2131–2143. Bennett, V. J. 2017. Effects of road density and pattern on the conservation of species and biodiversity. Current Landscape Ecology Reports 2:1–11. Bergerud, A. T. 1988. Caribou, wolves and man. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 3:68–72. Bergerud, A. T. 2000. Caribou. Pages 658–693 in S. Demarais and P. R. Karusmann, editors. Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Bergerud, A. T. 2007. The need for the management of wolves — an open letter. Rangifer 17:39–50. Bergerud, A. T., and J. P. Elliot. 1986. Dynamics of caribou and wolves in northern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:1515–1529. Bergerud, A. T., and R. E. Page. 1987. Displacement and dispersion of parturient caribou at calving as anitpredator tactics. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:1597–1606. Bergman, E. J., P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and A. A. Holland. 2015. Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence. Wildlife Biology 21:18–29. Borkowski, J. J., P. J. White, R. A. Garrott, T. Davis, A. R. Hardy, and D. J. Reinhart. 2006. Behavioral responses of bison and elk in Yellowstone to snowmobiles and snow coaches. Ecological Applications 16:1911– 1925.

: Long Term (Within 24–48 Months) 24

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Boulet, M., S. Couturier, S. D. Côté, R. D. Otto, and L. Bernatchez. 2007. Integrative use of spatial, genetic, and demographic analyses for investigating genetic connectivity between migratory, montane, and sedentary caribou herds. Molecular Ecology 16:4223–4240. Boutin, S., M. S. Boyce, M. Hebblewhite, D. Hervieux, K. H. Knopff, M. C. Latham, A. D. M. Latham, J. Nagy, D. Seip, and R. Serrouya. 2012. Why are caribou declining in the oil sands? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:65–67. Boutin, S., and E. Merrill. 2016. A review of population-based management of Southern Mountain caribou in BC. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Bowden, G. K. 1985. Wildlife damage on private agricultural land in the east Kootenay. Ministry of Environment, Vancouver, BC. Brade, B. 2003. Management of motorized access in high elevation mountain caribou habitat Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection, Government of British Columbia, Omineca Region, BC. Bradshaw, C. J. A., S. Boutin, and D. M. Hebert. 1998. Energetic implications of disturbance caused by petroleum exploration to woodland caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1319–1324. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2013. Implementation plan for the ongoing management of South Peace Northern Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 15) in British Columbia. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2014. Science Update for the South Peace Northern Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 15) in British Columbia. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2017. Regional Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy. In: Cariboo Region, Environmental Stewardship Division. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cariboo/env_stewardship/ecosystems/mdwr_strat/mgmtplan.html. Accessed November 27, 2017. British Columbia Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2015. White-tailed Deer: A Review of the 2010 Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management- issues/docs/white_tailed_deer_prov_review.pdf. Accessed Noember 2, 2017. British Columbia Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection. 2004. Procedures for Managing Identified Wildlife B.C. Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Brook, R. K., M. Cattet, C. T. Darimont, P. C. Paquet, and G. Proulx. 2014. Maintaining ethical standards during conservation crisis. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management 4:72–79. Brown, G. S., L. Landriault, D. J. H. Sleep, and F. F. Mallory. 2007. Comment arising from a paper by Wittmer et al.: hypothesis testing for top-down and bottom-up effects in woodland caribou population dynamics. Oecologia 154:485–492. Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. W. Enck, T. B. Lauber, P. D. Curtis, and G. F. Mattfeld. 2000. The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:797–807. Brumovsky, V. J., and R. S. McNay. 2015. Recommendations for Wildlife Habitat Area Designations for Caribou in the Finlay/Akie, Chase, and Wolverine Herds of North-central British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, BC. Butler, E. A., W. F. Jensen, R. E. Johnson, and J. M. Scott. 2008. Grain overload and secondary effects as potential mortality factors of moose in North Dakota. Alces 44:73–79. Cameron, R. D., W. T. Smith, S. G. Fancy, K. L. Gerhart, and R. G. White. 1993. Calving success of female caribou in relation to body weight. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:480-486. Chubbs, T. E., L. B. Keith, S. P. Mahoney, and M. J. McGrath. 1993. Responses of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to clear-cutting in east-central Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:487– 493. Cichowski, D. B. 1989. Seasonal movements, habitat use, and winter feeding ecology of woodland caribou in west-central British Columbia. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Cichowski, D. B. 1996. Managing woodland caribou in west-central British Columbia. Rangifer 16:119–126.

Literature Cited 2

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Cichowski, D. B., and P. Williston. 2005. Mountain pine beetles and emerging issues in the management of woodland caribou in west-central British Columbia. Rangifer 16:97–103. Compton, B. B., P. Zager, and G. Servheen. 1995. Survival and mortality of translocated woodland caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:490–496. Cornwall, W. 2016. To save caribou, Alberta wants to fence them in. Science 353:333–333. COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. COSEWIC. 2011. Designatable Units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Ottawa, ON. COSEWIC. 2014. Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population, Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Côté, S. D., T. P. Rooney, J.-P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:113–147. Courtois, R., J.-P. Ouellet, L. Breton, A. Gingras, and C. Dussault. 2007. Effects of forest disturbance on density, space use, and mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience 14:491–498. Cringan, A. T. 1956. Some aspects of the biology of caribou and a study of the woodland caribou range of the Slate Islands, Lake Superior, Ontario. Unviersity of Toronto, Toronto, ON. Cumming, H. G. 1992. Woodland caribou: Facts for forest managers. The Forestry Chronicle 68:481–491. Curatolo, J. A., and S. M. Murphy. 1986. The effects of pipelines, roads, and traffic on the movements of caribou, Rangifer tarandus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:218–224. Dawe, K. L., and S. Boutin. 2016. Climate change is the primary driver of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) range expansion at the northern extent of its range; land use is secondary. Ecology and Evolution 6:6435–6451. Dawson, R., A. T. Werner, and T. Q. Murdock. 2008. Preliminary analysis of climate change in the Cariboo- Chilcotin Area of British Columbia. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. DeCesare, N., J. Whittington, H. Robinson, M. Hebblewhite, M. Bradley, L. Neufeld, S. Cleveland, J. Goldberg, L. Greene, M. Hurley, C. Miller, W. Peters, J. Polfus, and M. Musiani. 2010a. Evaluating the reintroduction of southern mountain woodland caribou to restore small populations. Univeristy of Montana, Missoula, MT. DeCesare, N. J., M. Hebblewhite, H. S. Robinson, and M. Musiani. 2010b. Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Animal Conservation 13:353–362. Decesare, N. J., J. Whittington, M. Hebblewhite, H. Robinson, M. Bradley, L. Neufeld, and M. Musiani. 2010c. The role of translocation in recovery of woodland caribou populations. Conservation Biology 25:365– 373. DeMars, C. A., and S. Boutin. 2017. Nowhere to hide: Effects of linear features on predator-prey dynamics in a large mammal system. Journal of Animal Ecology in press. Denryter, K. A., R. C. Cook, J. G. Cook, and K. L. Parker. 2017. Straight from the caribou’s (Rangifer tarandus) mouth: detailed observations of tame caribou reveal new insights into summer–autumn diets. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:81–94. Dickie, M., R. Serrouya, C. DeMars, J. Cranston, and S. Boutin. 2017. Evaluating functional recovery of habitat for threatened woodland caribou. Ecosphere 8:e01936. Dickie, M., R. Serrouya, R. S. McNay, and S. Boutin. 2016. Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behaviour. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:253–263. Dolman, P. M., N. J. Collar, K. M. Scotland, and R. J. Burnside. 2015. Ark or park: the need to predict relative effectiveness of ex situ and in situ conservation before attempting captive breeding. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:841–850. Dumont, A., M. Crête, J.-P. Ouellet, J. Huot, and J. Lamoureux. 2000. Population dynamics of northern white- tailed deer during mild winters: evidence of regulation by food competition. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:764–776.

Literature Cited 3

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Dussault, C., V. Pinard, J.-P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, and D. Fortin. 2012. Avoidance of roads and selection for recent cutovers by threatened caribou: fitness-rewarding or maladaptive behaviour? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:4481–4488. Dyer, S. J., J. P. O'Neill, S. M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:531–542. Dyer, S. J., J. P. O'Neill, S. M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:839–845. Edmonds, E. J., and M. Bloomfield. 1984. A study of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west central Alberta, 1979 – 1983. Unpublished report AFW-84-045, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016. Range Plan Guidance for Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population. Page 26 Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON. Environment Canada. 2012a. Management Plan for the Northern Mountain Population of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Page vii + 79 Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Environment Canada. 2012b. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada Environment Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa. Canada. Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Page viii + 103 pp. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Fenger, M. A., D. S. Eastman, C. J. Clement, and R. E. Page. 1986. Caribou habitat use in the Level Mountain and Horseranch ranges, British Columbia. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. Forrester, T. D., and H. U. Wittmer. 2013. A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black‐tail ed deer Odocoileus hemionus in North America. Mammal Review 43:292–308. Francis, S., and J. Nishi. 2015. Range assessment as a cumulative effects management tool: Assessment of the carcross caribou herd range in Yukon. Environment Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch Regional Programs, Whitehorse, YT. Freeman, N. L. 2008. Motorized backcountry recreation and stress response in mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). MSc Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Fryxell, J. M., D. J. T. Jussell, A. B. Lambert, and P. C. Smith. 1991. Time lags and population fluctuations in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:377–385. Gaillard, J.-M., M. Festa-Bianchet, N. G. Yoccoz, A. Loison, and C. Toïgo. 2000. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:367–393. Gillett, N. P., A. J. Weaver, F. W. Zwiers, and M. D. Flannigan. 2004. Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophysical Research Letters 31:L18211. Gilpin, M. E. 1990. Extinction of finite metapopulations in correlated environments. Pages 177–186 in B. Shorrocks and I. R. Swingland, editors. Living in a Patchy Environment. Oxford Scientific, Oxford, UK. Glover, G. J., M. Swendrowski, and R. J. Cawthorn. 1990. An epizootic of Besnoitiosis in captive caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 26:186–195. Government of Alberta. 2016. Little Smoky and A La Peche Caribou Range Plan. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Edmonton, Canada. Government of British Columbia. 1996a. Park Act.in Province of British Columbia, editor. RSBC 1996. Queen's Printer, Victoria, BC. Government of British Columbia. 1996b. Park Act: Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation.in Province of British Columbia, editor. B.C. Reg. 180/90. Queen's Printer, Victoria, BC. Government of British Columbia. 2003a. Management direction statement for Boya Lake Provincial Park. Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection Environmental Stewardship Division‚ Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Fish and Wildlife, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC.

Literature Cited 4

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Government of British Columbia. 2003b. Management direction statement for Chicken's Neck Mountain Ecological Reserve. Ministry of Water‚ Land and Air Protection Environmental Stewardship Division‚ Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Fish and Wildlife, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. Grant, L. 2017. North Skeena Caribou 3-year Management Plan British Columbia Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Smithers, BC. Griesbauer, H. P., and D. S. Green. 2010. Regional and ecological patterns in interior Douglas-fir climate–growth relationships in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40:308–321. Gustine, D. D., K. L. Parker, R. J. Lay, M. P. Gillingham, and D. C. Heard. 2006. Interpreting resource selection at different scales for woodland caribou in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1601–1614. Habib, T. J., E. H. Merrill, M. J. Pybus, and D. W. Coltman. 2011. Modelling landscape effects on density– contact rate relationships of deer in eastern Alberta: Implications for chronic wasting disease. Ecological Modelling 222:2722–2732. Harding, L. E., and E. McCullum. 1997. Ecosystem response to climate change in British Columbia and Yukon: threats and opportunities for biodiversity. Pages 1–22 in E. Taylor and B. Taylor, editors. Responding to global climate change in British Columbia and Yukon. Environment Canada, Vancouver, BC. Harris, G., R. M. Nielson, T. Rinaldi, and T. Lohuis. 2014. Effects of winter recreation on northern ungulates with focus on moose (Alces alces) and snowmobiles. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60:45–58. Hatter, I. W., P. Dielman, and G. W. Kuzyk. 2017. An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:508–515. Hayek, T., N. Lloyd, M. R. Stanley-Price, A. Saxena, and A. Moehrenschlager. 2016. An Exploration of Conservation Breeding and Translocation Tools to Improve the Conservation Status of Boreal Caribou Populations in Western Canada. Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoological Society, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Hayhurst, K. 1983. Reintroducing caribou to Caribou Mountain, B.C.: in defence of remnant populations. Unpublished. Hebblewhite, M. 2017. Billion dollar boreal woodland caribou and the biodiversity impacts of the global oil and gas industry. Biological Conservation 206:102–111. Hebblewhite, M., M. Musiani, N. J. DeCesare, S. Hazenberg, W. Peters, H. Robinson, and B. V. Weckworth. 2010a. Linear features, forestry and wolf predation of caribou and other prey in west central Alberta. University of Montana‚ Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada‚ Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Missoula, MT. Hebblewhite, M., C. White, and M. Musiani. 2010b. Revisiting Extinction in National Parks: Mountain Caribou in Banff. Conservation Biology 24:341–344. Hebblewhite, M., J. Whittington, M. Bradley, G. Skinner, A. Dibb, and C. White. 2007. Conditions for caribou persistence in the wolf-elk-caribou systems of the Canadian Rockies. Rangifer Special Issue 17:79–90. Hebblewhite, M., J. Whittington, M. Bradley, G. Skinner, A. Dibb, and C. A. White. 2006. Conditions for caribou persistence in the wolf-elk-caribou systems of the Canadian Rockies. The Eleventh North American Caribou Workshop, 24–27 April, 2006., Jasper, Alberta, Canada. Hebda, R. J. 1997. Impact of climate change on biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia and Yukon. Pages 1– 15 (Chapter 13) in E. Taylor and B. Taylor, editors. Responding to global climate change in British Columbia and Yukon. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. Hervieux, D., M. Hebblewhite, N. J. DeCesare, M. Russell, K. Smith, S. Robertson, and S. Boutin. 2013. Widespread declines in woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continue in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91:872–882. Hervieux, D., M. Hebblewhite, D. Stepnisky, M. Bacon, and S. Boutin. 2014. Managing wolves (Canis lupus) to recover threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology:1029–1037. Holt, R. D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theoretical Population Biology 12:197–229.

Literature Cited 5

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu, editors. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2012. IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Pages 1–16. International Union of Conserving Nations, Gland, Switzerland. James, A. R. C., S. Boutin, D. M. Hebert, and A. B. Rippin. 2004. Spatial separation of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:799–809. James, A. R. C., and A. K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:154–159. Johnson, C. J., L. P. W. Ehlers, and D. R. Seip. 2015. Witnessing extinction – Cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future loss of an evolutionarily significant unit of woodland caribou in Canada. Biological Conservation 186:176–186. Johnson, C. J., K. L. Parker, and D. C. Heard. 2000. Feeding site selection by woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Rangifer 20:158–172. Johnson, C. J., K. L. Parker, D. C. Heard, and D. S. Seip. 2004. Movements, foraging habits, and habitat use strategies of northern woodland caribou during winter: Implications for forest practices in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5:22–35. Johnson, D. R. 1985. Man-caused deaths of mountain caribou, Rangifer tarandus in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99:542–544. Johnson, D. R., and M. C. Todd. 1977. Summer use of a highway crossing by mountain caribou. Canadian Field- Naturalist 91:312–314. Jones, S. 2014. Facts about Brucellosis In: Brucellosis Disease Information, ed. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/brucellosis/downloads/bruc-facts.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017. King, M., and C. Carlick. 1997. Kaska cultural research project. Lower Post, BC. Kinley, T. A. 2008. Snowmobile - mountain caribou interactions: Perceptions and trends in caribou displacement British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Kinley, T. A. 2009. Caribou population augmentation feasibility assessment for Banff National Park. Report, Sylvan Consulting Ltd., Invermere, BC, Canada. Kruse, J., D. Klein, S. Braund, L. Moorehead, and B. Simeone. 1998. Co-management of natural resources: A comparison of two caribou management systems. Human Organization 57:447–458. Kuzyk, G. W. 2016. Provincial population and harvest estimates of moose in British Columbia. Alces 52:1–11. Laikre, L., N. Ryman, and N. G. Lundh. 1997. Estimated inbreeding in a small, wild muskox Ovibos moschatus population and its possible effects on population reproduction. Biological Conservation 79:197–204. Latham, A. D. M., M. C. Latham, and M. S. Boyce. 2011a. Habitat selection and spatial relationships of black bears (Ursus americanus) with woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89:267–277. Latham, A. D. M., M. C. Latham, M. S. Boyce, and S. Boutin. 2011b. Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and their effect on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ecological Applications 21:2854–2865. Latham, A. D. M., M. C. Latham, N. A. McCutchen, and S. Boutin. 2011c. Invading white-tailed deer change wolf-caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:204–212. Lessard, R., S. Martell, C. Walters, T. Essington, and J. Kitchell. 2005. Should ecosystem management involve active control of species abundances? Ecology and Society 10:1:online. MacNearney, D., K. E. Pigeon, J. Cranston, G. Stenhouse, and L. Finnegan. 2016. Towards stable caribou populations in Alberta: Considering resource selection by wolves, grizzly bears, and caribou to prioritize restoration of legacy seismic lines. PeerJ Preprints 4:e1972v1971. Mahoney, S. P., K. Mawhinney, C. McCarthy, D. Anions, and S. Taylor. 2001. Caribou reactions to provocation by snowmachines in Newfoundland. Rangifer 21:35–43. McClung, D. M. 2001. Characteristics of terrain, snow supply and forest cover for avalanche initiation caused by logging. Annals of Glaciology 32:223–229.

Literature Cited 6

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

McDevitt, A. D., S. Mariani, M. Hebblewhite, N. J. DeCesare, L. Morgantini, D. Seip, B. V. Weckworth, and M. Musiani. 2009. Survival in the Rockies of an endangered hybrid swarm from diverged caribou (Rangifer tarandus) lineages Molecular Ecology 18:665–679. McKay, T. L. 2007. Woodland caribou response to encounters with people in Jasper National Park. Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC. McLellan, B. N., R. Serrouya, H. U. Wittmer, and S. Boutin. 2010. Predator-mediated Allee effects in multi-prey systems. Ecology 91:286–292. McNay, R. S., D. C. Heard, R. Sulyma, and R. Ellis. 2008. A recovery action plan for northern caribou herds in north-central British Columbia. Forrex Forest Research Extension Society, Kamloops, BC. Meidinger, D., and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. Merkle, J. A., J. L. Polfus, J. J. Derbridge, and K. S. Heinemeyer. 2017. Dietary niche partitioning among black bears, grizzly bears, and wolves in a multiprey ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:663-671. Messier, F. 1991. The significance of limiting and regulating factors on the demography of moose and white- tailed deer. Journal of Animal Ecology 60:377–393. Messier, F. 1994. Ungulate population models with predation: a case study with the North American moose. Ecology 75:478–488. Messier, F., and D. O. Joly. 2000. Comment: Regulation of moose populations by wolf predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:506–510. Miller, F. L., S. J. Barry, W. A. Calvert, and K. A. Zittlau. 2007. Rethinking the basic conservation unit and associated protocol for augmentation of an ‘endangered’ caribou population: An opinion. Rangifer Special Issue No. 17:13–24. Miller, M. J. R., R. D. Dawson, and H. Schwantje. 2014a. Besnoitiosis. In: Manual of Common Diseases and Parasites of Wildlife in Northern British Columbia. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. http://wildlifedisease.unbc.ca/besnoitia.htm. Accessed September 18, 2017. Miller, M. J. R., R. D. Dawson, and H. Schwantje. 2014b. Manual of Common Diseases and Parasites of Wildlife in Northern British Columbia. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC. Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. Moose Management Technical Team. 2015. Provincial Framework for Moose Management in British Columbia. Pages 1–44 Fish and Wildlife Branch‚ Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. Neiland, K. A., J. A. King, B. E. Huntley, and R. O. Skoog. 1968. The diseases and parasites of Alaskan wildlife populations, part i. Some observations on brucellosis in caribou. Bulletin of the Wildlife Disease Association 4:27–36. Nellemann, C., I. Vistnes, P. Jordhøy, O. Strand, and A. Newton. 2003. Progressive impact of piecemeal infrastructure development on wild reindeer. Biological Conservation 113:307–317. Nitschke, C. R. 2008. The cumulative effects of resource development on biodiversity and ecological integrity in the Peace-Moberly region of Northeast British Columbia, Canada. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:1715–1740. O'Brien, D., M. Manseau, A. Fall, and M.-J. Fortin. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory. Biological Conservation 130:70–83. Oberg, P. R. 2001. Responses of mountain caribou to linear features in a west-central Alberta landscape. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Ogden, A. E., and J. L. Innes. 2008. Climate change adaptation and regional forest planning in southern Yukon, Canada. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13:833-861. Parker, K. L., P. S. Barboza, and M. P. Gillingham. 2009. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Functional Ecology 23:57–69. Parker, K. L., P. S. Barboza, and T. R. Stephenson. 2005. Protein conservation in female caribou (Rangifer tarandus): Effects of decreasing diet quality during winter. Journal of Mammalogy 86:610–622.

Literature Cited 7

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, K. L. Monteith, and R. T. Bowyer. 2012. Top-down versus bottom-up forcing: evidence from mountain lions and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 93:977–988. Pigeon, K. E., M. Anderson, D. MacNearney, J. Cranston, G. Stenhouse, and L. Finnegan. 2016. Toward the restoration of caribou habitat: Understanding factors associated with human motorized use of legacy seismic lines. Environmental Management 58:821–832. Plummer, D. A., D. Caya, A. Frigon, H. Côté, M. Giguère, D. Paquin, S. Biner, R. Harvey, and R. de Elia. 2006. Climate and climate change over North America as simulated by the Canadian RCM. Journal of Climate 19:3112–3132. Polfus, J., M. Hebblewhite, and K. Heinemeyer. 2011. Identifying indirect habitat loss and avoidance of human infrastructure by northern mountain woodland caribou. Biological Conservation 144:2637–2646. Polfus, J. L. 2010. Assessing cumulative human impacts on northern woodland caribou with traditional ecological knowledge and resource selection functions. MSc Thesis. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Poole, K. G., D. C. Heard, and G. Mowat. 2000. Habitat use by woodland caribou near Takla Lake in central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1552–1561. Powell, T. 2004. Réponse comportementale des caribous des bois au harcèlement par les motoneiges. Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC. Proulx, G., and R. Brook. 2017. Fencing large predator-free and competitor-free landscapes for the recovery of woodland caribou in western Alberta: An ineffective conservation option. Animals 7:2. Racey, G. D. 2005. Climate change and woodland caribou in Northwestern Ontario: a risk analysis. Rangifer 25:123–136. Ray, J. C., D. B. Cichowski, M.-H. St-Laurent, C. J. Johnson, S. D. Petersen, and I. D. Thompson. 2015. Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the Species At Risk Act, 2002–2014. Rangifer 35:49–80. Robichaud, C. B., and K. H. Knopff. 2015. Biodiversity offsets and caribou conservation in Alberta: opportunities and challenges. Rangifer 35:99–122. Robinson, H. S., M. Hebblewhite, N. J. DeCesare, J. Whittington, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, and M. Musiani. 2012. The effect of fire on spatial separation between wolves and caribou. Rangifer 32:277–294. Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, and J. C. Gwilliam. 2002. Cougar predation and population growth of sympatric mule deer and white-tailed deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:556–568. Rytwinski, T., and L. Fahrig. 2012. Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta- analysis. Biological Conservation 147:87–98. Scarfe, B. L. 2006. Socio-economic and environmental impact assessment for the Peace Moberly Tract: the base case. BriMar Consultants Ltd, Victoria, BC. Schneider, R. R., G. Hauer, W. L. Adamowicz, and S. Boutin. 2010. Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: The case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biological Conservation 143:1603–1611. Schwantje, H. 2015. Chronic Wasting Disease. In: Wildlife Diseases. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife- health/wildlife-diseases/chronic-wasting-disease. Accessed September 18, 2017. Seip, D. R. 1990. Ecology of woodland caribou in Wells Gray Provincial Park. No. B-68, British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, BC. Seip, D. R. 1992. Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:1494–1503. Seip, D. R. 1998. Ecosystem management and the conservation of caribou habitat in British Columbia. Rangifer 18:203–211. Seip, D. R. 2008. Mountain caribou interactions with wolves and moose in central British Columbia. Alces 44:1– 5. Seip, D. R., and D. B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer 16:73–80. Seip, D. R., C. J. Johnson, and G. S. Watts. 2007. Displacement of mountain caribou from winter habitat by snowmobiles. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1539–1544.

Literature Cited 8

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Seip, D. R., and E. Jones. 2017. Population status of central mountain caribou herds in British Columbia and response to recovery management actions, 2017. Ministry of Environment Government of British Columbia,, Prince George, BC. Serrouya, R., B. N. McLellan, H. van Oort, G. Mowat, and S. Boutin. 2017. Experimental moose reduction lowers wolf density and stops decline of endangered caribou. PeerJ 5:e3736. Serrouya, R., D. Paetkau, B. N. McLellan, S. Boutin, M. Campbell, and D. A. Jenkins. 2012. Population size and major valleys explain microsatellite variation better than taxonomic units for caribou in western Canada. Molecular Ecology 21:2588–2601. Sifton, E. 2001. Disease risk assessment for an experimental captive breeding program of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia. final, Wildlife Branch BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, BC. Simpson, K. 1987a. The effects of snowmobiling on winter range use of mountain caribou. Ministry of Environment and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Nelson, BC. Simpson, K. 1987b. Impacts of hydro-electric reservoir on populations of caribou and grizzly bear in southern British Columbia. BCEP--WR-24, British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, BC Simpson, K., and E. Terry. 2000. Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain caribou. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-99, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. Simpson, K., and G. P. Woods. 1987. Movements and habitats of caribou in the mountains of southern British Columbia. No. B-57, British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, BC. Sinclair, A. R. E., R. P. Pech, C. R. Dickman, D. Hik, P. Mahon, and A. E. Newsome. 1998. Predicting effects of predation on conservation of endangered prey. Conservation Biology 12:564–575. Skeena Region. 2017. South Skeena Caribou Management Plan. Ministry of Forests‚ Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Draft, Smithers, BC. Smith, K. G., E. J. Ficht, D. Hobson, T. C. Sorensen, and D. Hervieux. 2000. Winter distribution of woodland caribou in relation to clear-cut logging in west-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1433– 1440. Sorensen, T., P. D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2008. Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:900–905. Spalding, D. J. 1994. Cougar in British Columbia. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Information and Education Section, Victoria, BC. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/cougar.htm. Accessed September 21, 2017. Stevenson, S. K. 1990. Managing second-growth forests as caribou habitat. Rangifer Special Issue No. 3:139– 144. Stevenson, S. K. 1991. Forestry and caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer 11:124–129. Stronen, A. V., P. Paquet, S. Herrero, S. Sharpe, and N. Waters. 2007. Translocation and recovery efforts for the Telkwa caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, herd in westcentral British Columbia, 1997–2005. Canadian Field-Naturalist 121:155–163. Swift, K., and S. Ran. 2012. Successional responses to natural disturbance, forest management and climate change in British Columbia forests. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 13:1–23. Trainer, D. O. 1973. Caribou mortality due to the meningeal worm. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 9:376–378. Vors, L. S., and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Global Change Biology 15:2626– 2633. Walden, H. S., S. A. L. Ness, L. D. Mittel, T. J. Divers, K. van Laaren, and D. C. Sellon. 2014. Chapter 60 - Miscellaneous Parasitic Diseases. Pages 505–514 Equine Infectious Diseases (Second Edition). W.B. Saunders, St. Louis, MO. Webster, L. 1997. The effects of human related harassment on caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Ministry of the Environment, Government of British Columbia, Williams Lake, BC. Weckworth, B. V., M. Musiani, A. McDevitt, M. Hebblewhite, and S. Mariani. 2012. Reconstruction of caribou evolutionary history in western North America and its implications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 21:3610–3624.

Literature Cited 9

Woodland Caribou Plan for the Horseranch Subpopulation

Whittington, J., M. Hebblewhite, N. J. DeCesare, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. F. Wilmshurst, and M. Musiani. 2011. Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1535–1542. Wilkinson, C. J. A. 2010. An analysis of government actions for the protection and recovery of forest-dwelling woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Ontario, Canada. Rangifer 30:67–77. Wilson, S. F. 2009. Recommendations for Predator-Prey Management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Wilson, S. F., and D. Hamilton. 2003. Cumulative effects of habitat change and backcountry recreation on mountain caribou in the Central Selkirk mountains Final Report, BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Canadian Mountain Holidays, Pope & Talbot Ltd., Nelson, BC, Banff, AB and Nakusp, BC. Wittmer, H. U., B. N. McLellan, D. R. Seip, J. A. Young, T. A. Kinley, G. S. Watts, and D. Hamilton. 2005a. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:407–418. Wittmer, H. U., B. N. McLellan, R. Serrouya, and C. D. Apps. 2007. Changes in landscape composition influence the decline of a threatened woodland caribou population. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:568–579. Wittmer, H. U., R. Serrouya, L. M. Elbroch, and A. J. Marshall. 2013. Conservation strategies for species affected by apparent competition. Conservation Biology 27:254–260. Wittmer, H. U., A. R. E. Sinclair, and B. N. McLellan. 2005b. The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia 144:257–267. Wobeser, G. 1976. Besnoitiosis in a woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 12:566–571. Wolfe, S. A., B. Griffith, and C. A. G. Wolfe. 2000. Response of reindeer and caribou to human activities. Polar Research 19:63–73.

10